Ortiz Vizcarrondo, Karen v. Universal Insurance Company, KLCE202300698

Background

On Sept. 18, 2019, Keren Ortiz Vizcarrondo slipped and fell at Wendy’s #06922 in Río Grande while at the condiments area; her food and a soda spilled on the floor.
Store manager prepared an incident report; plaintiff sought medical care and alleged chronic symptoms and a permanent partial disability (parties later stipulated 5% disability).
Plaintiffs requested store security-camera footage (5 hours before to 3 hours after); WENDCO/Grupo Colón Gerena requested video from their vendor only after receiving the demand and did not preserve a copy; vendor did not respond and footage became unavailable.
Trial (Feb. 2023) resulted in a judgment for plaintiffs: $100,000 for Ortiz and $22,000 for her husband, plus prejudgment interest and costs of $2,611; the trial court found a dangerous condition, no comparative negligence, and noted failure to preserve video.
Defendants appealed (challenging factual findings, comparative negligence, damages valuation, and application of spoliation doctrine) and sought certiorari on costs; the Court of Appeals consolidated appeals and affirmed the trial court in full, including costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency and accuracy of trial court factual findings	Trial findings reflect witness testimony and stipulated evidence supporting a dangerous condition and timeline	Many numbered findings (e.g., about preservation, timing, cone placement, cleaning) lack support or are incomplete/contradictory	Appellate court reviewed transcript, found findings supported by testimony/stipulations and declined to amend them
Existence of dangerous condition & comparative negligence	Ortiz: floor was slippery due to recent mopping; no cone/warning in area; defendant had notice or should have known	WENDCO: cone was used; employee had mopped and warned patrons; plaintiff failed to prove defendant’s negligence or acted negligently herself	Court found evidence preponderant that a dangerous condition existed, no proof plaintiff assumed risk or was comparatively negligent
Spoliation / preservation of security video	Plaintiffs: defendants had duty to preserve footage after notice; failure to preserve justified adverse inference or sanction	Defendants: video availability not in dispute because fall occurred; doctrine of spoliation not recognized / video not necessary to prove liability	Court held preservation obligations arise under rules; even without adopting spoliation doctrine, trial court permissibly treated lack of preserved video as probative of defendant’s failure to preserve and did not abuse discretion
Valuation of damages	Plaintiffs: awarded sums reflect chronic pain, decreased activities, medical treatment and updated precedent-based valuation	Defendants: damages award unsupported, trial court failed to detail comparative precedents or properly compute updated awards	Appellate court deferred to trial court’s valuation (not excessively high/ridiculous) and found award consistent with comparable precedent after updating
Costs and attorney fees / temerity	Plaintiffs: expert testimony was necessary to prove causation; costs reasonably incurred	Defendants: expert testimony was unnecessary given stipulations; awarding costs and expert fees was erroneous; no temerity to impose attorneys’ fees	Court upheld award of costs ($2,611) and found trial court acted within discretion in allowing expert testimony and refusing to find defendants’ conduct temerarious

Key Cases Cited

Dávila Nieves v. Meléndez Marín, 187 DPR 750 (2013) (standard of appellate deference to trial court factual findings)
Colón González v. K‑Mart, 154 DPR 510 (2001) (duty of commercial proprietor to keep premises reasonably safe)
Santiago Montañez v. Fresenius Medical Care, 195 DPR 476 (2016) (methodology for comparing and updating damages awards)
Rodríguez v. Hospital, 186 DPR 889 (2012) (use of precedent and CPI adjustments in damage valuation)
Rosado v. Supermercado Mr. Special, 139 DPR 946 (1996) (medical expert testimony on symptomatic exacerbation of preexisting disc conditions)
Trans‑Oceanic Life Ins. v. Oracle Corp., 184 DPR 689 (2012) (abuse of discretion standard and examples)